I'll bow out of this discussion with the observation that ANY secondhand written account is ALWAYS subordinate to eyewitness accounts when attempting to prove ANY legal case. IMO anyone who unquestioningly accepts any written account, ESPECIALLY any account written second- or third-hand by ANY journalist, is very possibly making a big mistake.
I need look no further than my own father's obituary in our local paper. I gave them a written copy of what I wanted to say, and received assurances that it would be published verbatim as written.
HAH! Instead of showing him in the Naval Reserve for 25 years after WW2 and ultimately retiring 10 years later after 35 years as a full-time civilian USACoE Engineer, the paper showed him on full-time active Naval Aviation duty and barely mentioned his Army CoE Engineering career as being part-time and for the DoD instead of full-time for the CoE!
So much (dismissive snap of the fingers) for accuracy in the publicly-printed word, as opposed to an eyewitness account from someone who actually WITNESSED the events!
When investigating old events it's common to find only publicly-printed info written second-hand with no corroborating eyewitness reports. In the absence of such eyewitness reports this second-hand hearsay written data must necessarily be accepted as accurate to a certain degree, but certainly not accepted as gospel when eyewitness accounts differ or add new details.
Like the Madam said to the Bishop, "You pays your money and you takes your choice!" Politics aside, of course (grin).
Regards, Joe
